The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell said of Gowdy
after the Tuesday hearing: “It was up to him to get to the truth, and
he punted. Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked
the fortitude to confront those responsible.”

Former CIA officer D. W. Wilber noted in The Hill
Monday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s actions leading
up to the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration’s foreign
policy in Libya as a whole were “lunacy on a grand scale”: “Additional
security was denied even though intelligence reports clearly indicated
the presence in Libya of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups hostile to
the United States.” Hillary’s “trust in the various militia factions to
set aside their longstanding differences and establish a governing body
in the war torn country illustrates another amateur mistake.” But it
wasn’t. It was a professional mistake.

In reality, Hillary’s
actions in Libya were an implementation of the policy called for by
foreign policy professionals for years: to ignore whatever a study of
Islamic doctrine and law might reveal about the thought processes and
motivations of Islamic jihadis, and to assume that they’re motivated by
the same mix of pragmatism and self-interest that motivates secular
Western urban cosmopolites, i.e., people just like themselves.

This is the kind of disastrous miscalculation preached by establishment foreign policy wonks including the likes of the puerileandsilly Will McCants (and the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution in general), Max Abrahms
(and the Council on Foreign Relations in general), and a host of others
that the State Department and other foreign policy entities hire by the
pound.

The foreign policy establishment is a bipartisan
creation, and both parties refuse to challenge its hegemony. The
Republicans, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearings showed
Tuesday, continue instead to let Hillary and Obama off the hook, and
don’t even come close to challenging the entrenched foreign policy
bureaucracy. Breitbart News noted that the final report from Rep. Trey
Gowdy (R-SC)’s committee refused “to blame President Obama or
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as refus[ed] to say
directly if Clinton lied to the American people regarding the Benghazi
attacks.”

The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell said of Gowdy
after the Tuesday hearing: “It was up to him to get to the truth, and
he punted. Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked
the fortitude to confront those responsible.”

Bozell detailed
the many failures of Gowdy’s inquiry: “The causes, events and
circumstances regarding the attacks on the American personnel and
facilities at Benghazi are still a mystery to the American people. Who
denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound?
No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No
answer. Why did this administration deliberately lie about the video?
No answer. Should the Commander-in-Chief be held responsible for the
multiple failures of the military? Should the Secretary of State be held
responsible for the disastrous consequences of State Department
decisions? Not according to this report. They wouldn’t even state that
Hillary Clinton lied about the video though her own emails, read by
committee members, prove she had! But they did blame a ‘rusty
bureaucratic process.’”

That “rusty bureaucratic process” is a
product of the foreign policy establishment that led us into this mess.
Hillary Clinton is just their most prominent exponent — which does not
in the least exonerate her. It’s just to say that not only does Hillary
Clinton’s influence over the U.S. government in whatever capacity need
to be decisively rejected; the whole foreign policy establishment needs
to be swept out, cherished and unquestioned assumptions rejected, and
the edifice remade by people who are more realistic and unafraid to base
policy on unpleasant realities rather than upon politically correct
wishful thinking.

Even worse, right after the Benghazi massacre, the father of one of
those slain there recounted that Secretary of State Clinton spoke to
him at a memorial service about the Muhammad filmmaker, saying,
“We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted.” And she did.
The filmmaker, who went by several different names, had a record full
of run-ins with the law, and at the time of the Benghazi attacks was out
on parole. A condition of his parole, however, was that he not go on
the Internet – which he apparently did in order to upload the notorious
video to YouTube.

For that, he was arrested and imprisoned for
several months, thereby becoming the first political prisoner in the
U.S. for Obama’s war on free speech and enforcement of Sharia blasphemy
laws. There can be no doubt that he was imprisoned not for the
technicality of the probation violation (while thousands of more serious
probation violators walked the streets), but for insulting Muhammad.
His arrest was a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. He was
nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the
new de facto federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.

That,
too, was a reflection of the foreign policy establishment’s
determination to compel Americans to stop doing anything and everything
that any Muslim might construe as offensive to Islam. Reflecting the
establishment policy also were Hillary’s fatuous words: “Muslims are
peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with
terrorism.” In response to that, Donald Trump recently opined that
Hillary was “in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name
the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.”
Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit
the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the
country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun
they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring
the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow
overseas, and it is growing.”

Trump’s point was sound. In what
way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx
of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed
jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to
jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be
an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near
future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?

Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she
believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased
without any effective system really to screen.” Again, his point his
sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for
the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered
to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering
the country. Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites
would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge
scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.

The
foreign policy establishment that is irrevocably committed to these
politically correct fantasies must be swept out. And to elect Hillary
Clinton President of the United States would be, in D. W. Wilber’s
words, “lunacy on a grand scale.”

Robert SpencerSource: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263337/hillarys-serious-lack-competence-cost-lives-robert-spencer Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.